Seems this situation could have been handled worse.
When I was a christian several churches I was part of had serial sexual harassment by powerful men that was discovered years later. This seems unlikely in EA
My friends in political communities imply sexual harassment is rife
Cotton-Barratt could have been thrown out without any possibility of discussion. I am reliability told this is the policy of some UK universities.
Lesswrong user Mingyuan writes usefully on how difficult due process is here
This topic feels costly to discuss. It is my general view that communities need to be able to have discussions on what their norms should be. I don’t think EA has really been capable of that here.
When did the worst of these cases happen? If the worst cases happened 5 years ago, that seems materially different than if they happened 1 year ago. eg, where does the majority of the ‘predictable harm’ fall on the timeline? Likewise, Cotton-Barratt has been de fact ostracised for months now. Seems like this should count towards the ban time.
To what extent is this about Owen and to what extent is this as an example? I would softly hold that some parts of this decision are to show that even powerful people should be held accountable. I think we should be honest with ourselves if this is the case.
“After February 11th, 2025, Owen Cotton-Barratt will need to appeal to the boards of EV US and EV UK to participate in any overnight events or to be a member in an EV coworking space.” I note there is no path for Cotton-Barratt to become a typical member of the community again. Personally I guess I want this for restorative justice. Such standards might be very high, but some notion of community forgiveness/normalisation is important to me.
> Cotton-Barratt could have been thrown out without any possibility of discussion. I am reliability told this is the policy of some UK universities.
Depending on what ‘discussion’ means here, I’d be surprised. It would be illegal to fire someone without due process. Whether discussion would be public as in here is a different matter; there tends to be a push towards confidentiality.
For balance: I’ve been an advocate for victims in several similar cases in UK universities, at least one of which was considerably more severe than what i’ve seen described in this case. I’ve encountered intervention and pressure from senior academic/administrative figures to discourage formal complaints being submitted, resulting in zero consequences for the perpetrator, and the victims leaving their roles. I would expect this to be the outcome more often on average than the very strong reaction Nathan describes.
So I asked my friend who runs training at universities on this topic and they said that at one university it appeared that way for a while, which is moderately weaker than what I said. So I got that wrong.
But that still works as an example. There was a real world place where things were worse than here.
“After February 11th, 2025, Owen Cotton-Barratt will need to appeal to the boards of EV US and EV UK to participate in any overnight events or to be a member in an EV coworking space.” I note there is no path for Cotton-Barratt to become a typical member of the community again. Personally I guess I want this for restorative justice. Such standards might be very high, but some notion of community forgiveness/normalisation is important to me.
The Boards’ action only applies to the EVFs—and so the post-2025 restrictions only have effect insofar as the EVFs continue to exist, and (sponsor overnight events or run coworking spaces). I think the probability of those things holding for more than 2-3 years is less than even. There’s also nothing to preclude future Boards from removing these restrictions on Owen’s petition—in fact, it would be somewhat difficult for the current Boards to bind future Boards to not remove them. Moreover, I don’t think a requirement that two specific forms of participation be approved at a higher organizational level is a meaningful departure from being a “typical member.”
More broadly, I don’t think forgiving misconduct means ignoring the consequences that flow from what happened. For example, allowing Owen to have certain roles carries some legal and PR risk—potentially for any organization, but especially for EVF. Forgiveness wouldn’t absolve the Boards of their fiduciary responsibility to consider, manage, and mitigate those risks.
Likewise, forgiving someone for cheating on you doesn’t imply that you need to lift the real-world consequences of their behavior (you broke up with them, you still won’t get back together with them, etc.). One could argue that forgiveness implies remission of any sanctions imposed for the purposes of retribution and/or specific deterrence (i.e., persuading you to behave in the future), but I don’t see those as the main drivers of the Boards’ action here.
I note there is no path for Cotton-Barratt to become a typical member of the community again
I don’t think this is true?
I don’t feel qualified to give an opinion on the board decisions, punishment etc. for the specific case. But in nature, it does look like a decision that allows returning to full participation in the community, subject to some future checks, which makes sense.
And his reputation has suffered a blow, but not a very big one? Like, I don’t see anyone publicly objecting to his presence on the forum.
Some thoughts:
Seems this situation could have been handled worse.
When I was a christian several churches I was part of had serial sexual harassment by powerful men that was discovered years later. This seems unlikely in EA
My friends in political communities imply sexual harassment is rife
Cotton-Barratt could have been thrown out without any possibility of discussion. I am reliability told this is the policy of some UK universities.
Lesswrong user Mingyuan writes usefully on how difficult due process is here
This topic feels costly to discuss. It is my general view that communities need to be able to have discussions on what their norms should be. I don’t think EA has really been capable of that here.
When did the worst of these cases happen? If the worst cases happened 5 years ago, that seems materially different than if they happened 1 year ago. eg, where does the majority of the ‘predictable harm’ fall on the timeline? Likewise, Cotton-Barratt has been de fact ostracised for months now. Seems like this should count towards the ban time.
To what extent is this about Owen and to what extent is this as an example? I would softly hold that some parts of this decision are to show that even powerful people should be held accountable. I think we should be honest with ourselves if this is the case.
“After February 11th, 2025, Owen Cotton-Barratt will need to appeal to the boards of EV US and EV UK to participate in any overnight events or to be a member in an EV coworking space.” I note there is no path for Cotton-Barratt to become a typical member of the community again. Personally I guess I want this for restorative justice. Such standards might be very high, but some notion of community forgiveness/normalisation is important to me.
Just wanted to note that ~1 year of the 2-year ban is retroactive so this has happened
> Cotton-Barratt could have been thrown out without any possibility of discussion. I am reliability told this is the policy of some UK universities.
Depending on what ‘discussion’ means here, I’d be surprised. It would be illegal to fire someone without due process. Whether discussion would be public as in here is a different matter; there tends to be a push towards confidentiality.
For balance: I’ve been an advocate for victims in several similar cases in UK universities, at least one of which was considerably more severe than what i’ve seen described in this case. I’ve encountered intervention and pressure from senior academic/administrative figures to discourage formal complaints being submitted, resulting in zero consequences for the perpetrator, and the victims leaving their roles. I would expect this to be the outcome more often on average than the very strong reaction Nathan describes.
So I asked my friend who runs training at universities on this topic and they said that at one university it appeared that way for a while, which is moderately weaker than what I said. So I got that wrong.
But that still works as an example. There was a real world place where things were worse than here.
The Boards’ action only applies to the EVFs—and so the post-2025 restrictions only have effect insofar as the EVFs continue to exist, and (sponsor overnight events or run coworking spaces). I think the probability of those things holding for more than 2-3 years is less than even. There’s also nothing to preclude future Boards from removing these restrictions on Owen’s petition—in fact, it would be somewhat difficult for the current Boards to bind future Boards to not remove them. Moreover, I don’t think a requirement that two specific forms of participation be approved at a higher organizational level is a meaningful departure from being a “typical member.”
More broadly, I don’t think forgiving misconduct means ignoring the consequences that flow from what happened. For example, allowing Owen to have certain roles carries some legal and PR risk—potentially for any organization, but especially for EVF. Forgiveness wouldn’t absolve the Boards of their fiduciary responsibility to consider, manage, and mitigate those risks.
Likewise, forgiving someone for cheating on you doesn’t imply that you need to lift the real-world consequences of their behavior (you broke up with them, you still won’t get back together with them, etc.). One could argue that forgiveness implies remission of any sanctions imposed for the purposes of retribution and/or specific deterrence (i.e., persuading you to behave in the future), but I don’t see those as the main drivers of the Boards’ action here.
I don’t think this is true?
I don’t feel qualified to give an opinion on the board decisions, punishment etc. for the specific case. But in nature, it does look like a decision that allows returning to full participation in the community, subject to some future checks, which makes sense.
And his reputation has suffered a blow, but not a very big one? Like, I don’t see anyone publicly objecting to his presence on the forum.